Re: [PATCH v2 00/21] Universal Payload initial series

[Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2279 bytes --]

On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 10:23:21AM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> On 16.07.24 21:08, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 13, 2024 at 09:40:17PM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Am 13. Juli 2024 10:12:50 MESZ schrieb Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>:
> > > > > From: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> > > > > Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2024 08:00:34 +0100
> > > > > 
> > > > > Universal Payload (UPL) is an Industry Standard for firmware
> > > > > components[1].
> > > > 
> > > > I think you have some trouble understanding the concept of industry
> > > > standard ;).  I guess you want this to become an industry standard.
> > > > Firmly https://xkcd.com/927/ territory if you ask me.
> > > > 
> > > > > UPL is designed to improve interoperability within the
> > > > > firmware industry, allowing mixing and matching of projects with less
> > > > > friction and fewer project-specific implementations. UPL is
> > > > > cross-platform, supporting ARM, x86 and RISC-V initially.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This series provides some initial support for this, targeting 0.9.1 and
> > > > > sandbox only.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Features still to come include:
> > > > > - Support for architectures
> > > > > - FIT validation
> > > > > - Handoff validation
> > > > > - Interoperability tests
> > > > > 
> > > > > This series is available at dm/uplb-working and requires the alist
> > > > > series at dm/alist-working[2]
> > > 
> > > Why is this series needed?
> > 
> > Because UPL is a standard, supported by other projects, which requires
> > more than Just Nothing Else on top of what we do today. Please do
> > provide constructive feedback on the changes themselves, but bringing in
> > UPL support proper is something we should (and will) do. Thanks!
> > 
> 
> SPL loading a FIT image (e.g. EDK II + OpenSBI) seems to be very close
> to UPL. What is missing?
> 
> UPL is meant as the interface between two firmware pieces and not
> between firmware and the OS. Why should we let main U-Boot support UPL?
> Isn't SPL support sufficient?
> 
> Which other projects implement the UPL standard?

coreboot for one, as talked about in the announcement Simon forwarded to
the U-Boot list just before this series.

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]